Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
Israel’s Supreme Court unanimously rejected petitions from left-wing and human rights organizations demanding that the government expand humanitarian aid to Gaza during the ongoing war after it made extensive cuts. Chief Justice Yitzhak Amit ruled that Israel has fulfilled its obligations under international law and therefore dismissed the case.
Justice Noam Sohlberg wrote that “the factual reality we encountered differs from the portrayal presented by the petitioners. The Israel Defense Forces’ efforts to facilitate humanitarian aid into Gaza, alongside intense military operations, are unprecedented among the world’s armies.”
The court ruled that the laws of military occupation do not apply to Israel regarding Gaza, as Israel does not exercise governmental authority in the enclave, and Hamas has not lost its governing capabilities.
Chief Justice Amit emphasized that Israel does not directly provide humanitarian goods but merely permits their entry, while terrorist organizations exploit the civilian population and seize aid shipments. The justices determined that the respondents’ conduct did not warrant judicial intervention, noting that no quantitative restrictions were imposed on the amount or type of aid, and that extensive efforts were made to improve infrastructure and mechanisms for aid delivery.
Justices Sohlberg and David Mintz concurred with Amit. Sohlberg wrote that Israel had gone far beyond its obligations by facilitating humanitarian aid, even at the expense of operational priorities and at the risk of soldiers’ lives. “Senior IDF officials coordinated logistical and security needs to ensure the frequent and large-scale transfer of humanitarian aid to Gaza,” he stated.
“Many dedicated soldiers and commanders worked on this day and night, beyond what was required, even at the cost of operational effectiveness. Tragically, some of our forces were harmed as a result of Hamas’ cruelty, as it did not hesitate to launch attacks, even at aid distribution points,” Sohlberg added. “Hamas’ murderous hand was also evident in the hostile takeover of humanitarian aid shipments. However, Hamas’ brutality did not deter IDF soldiers. Yet, it is clear to any reasonable person that excessive ‘humanitarianism’ that is unfocused misses its goal. Aid that falls directly into Hamas’ hands is an oxymoron; what is intended to be humane becomes predatory. Such an approach does not bring peace, but rather perpetuates pain and suffering.”
Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play: https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store: https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv
While Mintz agreed with Amit’s ruling, he dissented on the notion that Israel has any legal obligation to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza, asserting that the matter falls under the discretion of the government and security authorities, and the court should not intervene.
“Even if there is a legal basis for allowing humanitarian aid to uninvolved civilians, there is no obligation to provide broad, unlimited aid, nor dual-use materials that could reach enemy hands and be used against Israel,” Mintz wrote. “The IDF and the respondents have gone above and beyond to facilitate aid to Gaza, even at the risk that it could be seized by Hamas and used for its war efforts. In this regard, I agree with my colleague, Justice Sohlberg. As noted, the provision, scope, and nature of aid are matters for the government and the IDF’s broad discretion, and there is no justification for judicial intervention.”